Henrik Norbeck wrote:
>What does the standards committee say about BarFly m: macros?
>Besides, there are the U: and u: redefinitions. I'm getting to these
>parts in my implementation, and I will need to know what we
>accept as standard, since U:, u: and m: seem to be in conflict with
>each other at the moment. Can we reach an agreement about a
>great unified macro/redefine standard.
>Is the standards committee working? Who is on it?
>
>Is this a big can of worms?
You bet!
There hasn't really been any discussion of macros yet, and the proposed
standard doesn't really address them except to give them the letter
u: instead of m:. That's not really a problem. The big problem is
with the U: field and the use of !text! in the tune. I have argued
against this ever since it was first proposed (and I bet nobody here
wants to hear the arguments again). Nonetheless it got put into the
draft standard and a couple of people have implemented it. Since nobody
wants to change the way that their program works we have a deadlock.
Phil Taylor
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
